New Jersey’s second district lies vast across its south. Atlantic City to the Delaware River, cranberry bogs and the Pine Barrens: Where the state’s other districts have been gerrymandered into twiddly bits, the second district seems large, substantial, and plausibly contiguous.

Unlike the state’s Gotham-gorged north, south Jersey is known for farmland, shore towns, and a struggling economy. It’s not exactly the district where you’d expect a ‘coder to run for Congress’—but that’s exactly what Dave Cole, native New Jerseyan and Obama campaign veteran is doing.

In fact, that’s his core pitch: He began his campaign with a Medium post announcing, “I’m a coder running for Congress.” He calls himself an engineer, and he brings a startup’s sensibility, systems—and, perhaps, naïveté—to the campaign.

Chief among these? He’s placed his full campaign platform on the code management software Github, and he’s invited anyone to edit it.

***

Cole should have an easier time than he’s having. New Jersey’s second district went to Obama by 8 percentage points in 2012 and 2008, yet its seat in the House has been controlled by a Republican congressman, Frank LoBiondo, since 1995.

Cole would like to face LoBiondo, who doesn’t exactly seem a friend of the president’s. He’s called Obamacare an “workable trainwreck.” (He also, though, supported the extension of unemployment insurance.) First, though, Cole must defeat Bill Hughes in the primary—Hughes, the establishment Democratic candidate; Hughes, whose father, William J., held NJ-2’s Congressional seat for the two decades before LoBiondo won it.

What Cole brings to the fight is an Ur-Millennial resume. A child of the second district, he attended a local high school and Rutgers University, where he served as student council president for two years. While in school, he got caught up in the Obama campaign’s New Jersey effort. Work in the White House followed 2008 victory: Cole served as “Senior Advisor to Technology” working to make government “more efficient and responsive.”

After leaving the White House, he joined the DC-based startup Mapbox, which creates maps from open-source data for non-profit use. His campaign-sanctioned bio labels him “an entrepreneur and an engineer.”

It’s that engineering ethos which informs his use of Github. Github, for the uninitiated, is a piece of software and a website that programmers use to manage their code. Companies and organizations often manage their large library of code on the service, which maintains and stores different versions of the underlying text. While it costs money to host code privately on Github, open-source and public software projects can use it for free.

For some startups, Github’s built-in messaging features have replaced team email.

The two options the Cole campaign gives
would-be platform writers (Cole for Congress)

So: Go to Cole’s campaign website and you can see his platform and take on the issues. That’s not the only place that information resides, though: A clone of the text also exists on Github, where anyone can suggest changes to it. People who dislike some aspect of the platform can also submit a change by leaving a comment on Cole’s website.

Cole’s platform has been on Github for about a month. So far, three people have requested to change it through Github.

“When I saw a line in Dave Cole’s repo that I thought could be improved, I spent 3 minutes and suggested the change. I am transgender and for me, making a distinction between gender identity and gender expression at a legal level is very important,” wrote Beach by email.

“Dave’s team could either accept the change or reject it,” Beach said. “Either way, I would know where they stand on the issue. For me, this is true democracy—collaboratively solving problems and improving our processes.”

When I talked to Cole, he said his campaign puts its platform on Github—and makes it editable—to be more transparent.

“As an engineer, I am ultimately judged on results—the product I ship—and not just what I say.”

“Win or lose in this election, we want to make sure everything we do is open and transparent,” he told me. “We wanted to state very clearly what solutions I’d bring.”

Cole said that users could submit a comment to his platform if they weren’t Github-inclined. And even if they didn’t submit a change, Cole said, they can see the entire history of each page and the accompanying issue, Cole said. He said the great asset of making this kind of in-progress historical record was that it could “rebuild trust.”

This all fits with Cole’s ethos: “As an engineer, I am ultimately judged on results—the product I ship—and not just what I say,” he says on the homepage of his campaign site. But I’m not sure that by publishing the haggling over his campaign platform, he’s solving the problems of democracy that he thinks he is. Many questions of law or government have no empirically right or wrong answer, or, if they do seem to have a right answer, it’s a more efficient one. The asset of Github, as Beach writes, is that it gets Cole’s views into plain sight—but I’m not sure the campaign needed a specialized software platform to do that.

Besides, our legislative politics don’t glob along molasses-like because there’s a dearth of debate or policy proposals. Rather, a whole political party has decided to resist the president in every way they can, even reneging on policy solutions they previously supported.

The website let the reader see exactly how the law’s letter had changed—and how that change hinted at shifts in its spirit and execution.

Obviously, Bridle said, we shouldn’t use Github to legislate or to write new laws. That, he implied, would be ludicrous. But he wondered if the body of language we’ve developed around describing version changes on Github might be usefully applied to talking about changes in the law. He asked if the Internet, a thing whose description eludes us, might provide some useful parallels to understanding the law.

Both, after all, are complex, linked systems of text and interpretation, of fluid people and articulated ideas. And while I’m not sure Cole’s issue-hub will prove useful to residents of NJ-2, it’s an intriguing innovation: a foray forward—and a simple one, at that—as we figure out how best to fit the huge systems of society together.

About the Author

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

Most of the big names in futurism are men. What does that mean for the direction we’re all headed?

In the future, everyone’s going to have a robot assistant. That’s the story, at least. And as part of that long-running narrative, Facebook just launched its virtual assistant. They’re calling it Moneypenny—the secretary from the James Bond Films. Which means the symbol of our march forward, once again, ends up being a nod back. In this case, Moneypenny is a send-up to an age when Bond’s womanizing was a symbol of manliness and many women were, no matter what they wanted to be doing, secretaries.

Why can’t people imagine a future without falling into the sexist past? Why does the road ahead keep leading us back to a place that looks like the Tomorrowland of the 1950s? Well, when it comes to Moneypenny, here’s a relevant datapoint: More than two thirds of Facebook employees are men. That’s a ratio reflected among another key group: futurists.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”